Re: Reals, Nominals and Louis

["Alan G. Isaac" <AISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, well. First Bruce and now Roy restate their views in
ways that don't completely baffle me. (This is not meant
to imply that my bafflement was their fault.) Once we admit
that individuals care about real values, the discussion
can shift to debating the extent to which this concern is or
can be accommodated in a monetary economy. I will of course
argue that it can be partially accommodated, while the
"nominalist" crowd seems to argue that it cannot be
accommodated at all. I guess I'll have to wait a month
for Roy to clarify his position. But the good news it that this
debunks the notion that there is a theoretical issue
here and moves us directly into the discussion of
existing institutions.

--Alan G. Isaac

On Sun, 3 Mar 96 9:27:49 EST roy rotheim said:
>It is the neoclassical (austrial and new Keynesian?)
>perspective(s) which insist that individiauls are only interested in
>AND only bargain in real terms.  I might agree with the former, but
>the latter simply cannot be implemented in a world where individuals
>make decisions today, where th results (which define real things) are
>not independent of all of the decisions made by  ALL participants.
>That's the essence of the theory of effective demand.  Be back in a
>month,  Roy